Round 2, Vote 6 (HOH Top Defensemen)

[Dreakmur]

The only thing that might prevent me from ranking Gerard in my top 5 is that I'm not 100% sure that he's the second best defenseman of his generation.

I am sure that he's the second best defenseman of his generation in the NHA/NHL after Cleghorn. Or more specifically, he was as good as Cleghorn but not for nearly as long.

But as many of you know, at the time, the NHA/NHL had only half the best players in the world. It was analogous to the current Eastern Conference with the PCHA and WHL analogous to the western conference. The big difference is that the competing leagues didn't play regular games against each other - only the champions from the two leagues would meet for the Cup.

So all those people who picked Gerard as one of the two best defenseman of the era (with Cleghorn) rarely if ever saw the best defenseman in PCHA history - Moose Johnson. Granted, the NHA/NHL is know for generally having better defenseman while the PCHA funneled the best players towards the rover position. But I would like to compare Eddie Gerard to Moose Johnson ideally.

On the other hand, the lack of availability of Johnson shouldn't prevent us from voting for Gerard. I said earlier that I'm certain Gerard was thought of more highly than Conacher. I also think Gerard might compare favorably with other short prime guys (Langway and Niedermayer).

Thoughts?

In my opinion, Gerard absolutely is not the second best of his generation. He may have been the second best while he played - maybe even the best - but his career was just too short. 6 years as a defenseman doesn't do it for me, especially when guys like Moose Johnson and George Boucher were arguably as good or better, and had much better overall careers.

I'd still put Gerard ahead of Neidermayer, Leetch, Langway...... and maybe Savard and Conacher. Not top5 though.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

In my opinion, Gerard absolutely is not the second best of his generation. He may have been the second best while he played - maybe even the best - but his career was just too short. 6 years as a defenseman doesn't do it for me, especially when guys like Moose Johnson and George Boucher were arguably as good or better, and had much better overall careers.

I'd still put Gerard ahead of Neidermayer, Leetch, Langway...... and maybe Savard and Conacher. Not top5 though.

I don't see a case for George Boucher over Gerard. They played in the same league on the same team, and contemporary sources are almost universal in considering Gerard the better player. And it's not like Boucher didn't spend his fair share of time at forward.

As for Moose Johnson, I doubt he every peaked as high as Gerard. Johnson was the dominant defensive defenseman of the West. But Gerard was probably the best defensive defenseman of the East, while also providing much more offense than Johnson. Depending on how you value consistent longevity as a top player, I could see one ranking Moose higher. But I think Gerard was likely a better player when he played. Since they played in different leagues, it's a much harder comparison than Gerard and Boucher, though.

And Leetch is already on the list, like he should be.

 

[overpass]

But as many of you know, at the time, the NHA/NHL had only half the best players in the world. It was analogous to the current Eastern Conference with the PCHA and WHL analogous to the western conference. The big difference is that the competing leagues didn't play regular games against each other - only the champions from the two leagues would meet for the Cup.

So all those people who picked Gerard as one of the two best defenseman of the era (with Cleghorn) rarely if ever saw the best defenseman in PCHA history - Moose Johnson.

Cyclone Taylor was the exception. He picked Gerard over Johnson and he saw a lot of Johnson. On the other hand he would have seen less of Gerard, basically only in Stanley Cup finals I believe.

Charles Coleman was an historian, not a firsthand observer. He picked Johnson over Gerard. As a historian, he may have placed more weight on longevity.

I'm probably going to have Gerard between 2-5. He was a major star in his day and a huge part of a dynasty. He was an all-around player, described at various times as a fast skater, a skilled attacker, a great defender, and a hard hitter. Above all he was a great team player and a great on-ice leader at a time when that was more important, when first string players played most of the game and there was less opportunity for in-game coaching from the bench.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Cyclone Taylor was the exception. He picked Gerard over Johnson and he saw a lot of Johnson. On the other hand he would have seen less of Gerard, basically only in Stanley Cup finals I believe.

Good point. If anything, Cyclone should have been biased towards Johnson, a fellow Western player.

Do you have any specific information as to how Gerard was viewed before he turned pro at the age of 23? It's not that important to me, as I realize it was quite common not to turn pro until an older age back then. But some people might use it to judge his longevity. At the end, he retired at the age of 33 while still an elite player due to a medical condition that would be easily treatable today. Langway's last healthy season was at 31 and he retired at 35. Niedermayer retired for the first time at 33, came back, and retired at 36. Especially considering era, 33 was a perfectly normal time to retire.

Edit: And especially for pre-consolidation players who played when switching positions was very common, I just view Gerard's time at forward as productive, non-peak years. I don't think it should take away from his longevity as a hockey player.

 

[Dreakmur]

I don't see a case for George Boucher over Gerard. They played in the same league on the same team, and contemporary sources are almost universal in considering Gerard the better player. And it's not like Boucher didn't spend his fair share of time at forward.

It's not about time at forward, it's about time on defense. Did Gerard accomplish more in 6 years than Boucher did in 12?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It's not about time at forward, it's about time on defense. Did Gerard accomplish more in 6 years than Boucher did in 12?

Seems like the consensus of those who saw them play is that Gerard did. Notice Gerard's placement on all those all-time teams at the defense position. It's not like Boucher did anything worth talking about in the last several seasons of his career.

Are we sure Boucher actually played 12 seasons as a defenseman? Boucher was definitely a forward when Gerard played with Cleghorn for the 1920 Cup. He is listed as a "defenseman" on wikipedia for the 1921 Cup but played rover in the finals and we know he had to play a significant time at forward considering Cleghorn and Gerard would have played most of the 60 minutes at the two defense positions. Once Cleghorn was replaced by Clancy, who played D next to Gerard for the 1924 Cup?

Boucher is definitely a top 60 defenseman, but I just can't see him over Gerard.

Edit: Gerard isn't someone like Dit Clapper who had peak seasons as both a forward and defenseman. Practically everything Gerard accomplished of note was as a defenseman.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Gerard's case vs. two other short-prime defensemen.

The case for Gerard over Niedermayer

1) Longer prime - Gerard was an elite player for 4-6 seasons, Niedermayer for 3-4.

2) Similar length career adjusted by era. Gerard didn't turn pro until he was 23 years old, but this was very common back then. He played professional hockey until he was 33 years old. Niedermayer retired for the first time at 33 years old because he had lost his passion for the game, he returned and played until he was 36, but wasn't quite the same. Gerard was elite until a medical condition that would be easily treatable with today's medicine forced him to retire.

Counterargument: Niedermayer spent his entire career as a defenseman. Gerard spent the less productive half of his career as a forward

3) At least as much contribution to team success. Both men won 4 Stanley Cups. Niedermayer was a star for 2 and an important contributing secondary player for 2. Gerard was a star through all 4 Cups and captained his team for 3 of them.

Gerard did only play the one game for Toronto for 1 of the 4 Cups, but was quite important - "Gerard was quickly summoned and played a crucial part in the St. Pats' victory in the fourth game of the match-up. In fact, he was so impressive that Patrick balked at allowing Gerard to participate in the fifth and deciding contest. It mattered little, as Toronto won the final match 5-1, with much of the credit for the shift in momentum resting with Gerard's involvement in the previous game. "

4) The 2nd or 3rd best defenseman of his generation after Cleghorn. In terms of peak, Gerard was as good as anyone, including Cleghorn. One might prefer Moose Johnson to Gerard, if you are big into longevity. Niedermayer on the other hand, was the 3rd-5th best defenseman of his generation, after Lidstrom and Pronger, depending on what you think of Blake and Chara (Yes, I went there, what makes Nieds a step above those two?).

The counterargument is obvious - Niedermayer was a part of a stronger generation, starting with Lidstrom vs. Cleghorn at the top.

The case for Gerard Over Langway

1) Similar lengthed prime - Langway accomplished pretty much everything that we are considering him for during a 6 year period between 1981 and 1986.

2) Similar lengthed career even before looking at era. Gerard didn't turn pro until he was 23 years old, but this was very common back then. He played professional hockey until he was 33 years old. Langway's last full season was at 31 years old before injuries started to mount. He was 34 years old the last time he played more than half the games and played 21 more games at the age of 35 before retiring.

Counter-argument: Same as above. Langway was always a defenseman. Gerard spent the less productive half of his career as a forward.

3) MUCH more prolific in the playoffs. 3 Cups as the captain of the NHL's first dynasty, and a 4th Cup with the game as a ringer for Toronto.

4) Good at both ends of the ice. I'm not sure this matters to me, but it might to some. Gerard was among the best defensive defensemen of his era (only Moose Johnson really has a case to be better IMO), but he was also quite productive offensively.
______________________________________________________

The main issue with Gerard is that his non-prime years were spent as a forward. But we shouldn't judge him by modern standards when it comes to that - every star defenseman of his era (Cleghorn, Boucher, Johnson, Cameron) spent some time at forward, and some of them (like Boucher) spent signficant time there, as did Gerard.

I view Gerard as a hockey player who was productive until the age of 33 with a 5-6 year peak as an elite defenseman. If he played in an era with better medicine, he'd undoubtedly have at least a few more years as a productive player, too.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Provided for informational purposes only, sans interpretation.

Scoring finishes among NHL defensemen across the course of each player's career. These raw numbers do not account for changes in league, position, etc. This should be kept in mind particularly for early-era players whose opponents were often changing leagues and positions as well.

Italics indicate players who have already been inducted onto our list.

BUTCH BOUCHARD - 1942-56

Rk | Player | From | To | GP | G | A | PTS
1 | Red Kelly | 1948 | 1956 | 598 | 125 | 242 | 367
2 | Bill Quackenbush | 1943 | 1956 | 774 | 62 | 222 | 284
3 | Doug Harvey |1948 | 1956 | 567 | 45 | 225 | 270
4 | Bill Gadsby | 1947 | 1956 | 590 | 71 | 181 | 252
5 | Jimmy Thomson | 1946 | 1956 | 655 | 15 | 196 | 211
6 | Pat Egan | 1942 | 1951 | 505 | 69 | 141 | 210
7 | Babe Pratt | 1942 | 1947 | 263 | 60 | 138 | 198
8 | Butch Bouchard | 1942 | 1956 | 785 | 49 | 144 | 193
9 | Bob Goldham | 1942 | 1956 | 650 | 28 | 143 | 171
10 | Flash Hollett | 1942 | 1946 | 238 | 77 | 88 | 165

LIONEL CONACHER 1926-37

Rk | Player | From | To | GP | G | A | PTS
1 | Eddie Shore | 1927 | 1937 | 444 | 94 | 147 | 241
2 | King Clancy | 1926 | 1937 | 491 | 107 | 124 | 231
3 | Lionel Conacher | 1926 | 1937 | 498 | 80 | 105 | 185
4 | Sylvio Mantha | 1926 | 1937 | 488 | 60 | 72 | 132
5 | Red Horner | 1929 | 1937 | 364 | 33 | 71 | 104
6 | Red Dutton | 1927 | 1936 | 449 | 29 | 67 | 96
7 | Albert Leduc | 1926 | 1935 | 383 | 57 | 35 | 92
8 | Earl Seibert | 1932 | 1937 | 262 | 39 | 53 | 92
9 | Alex Smith | 1926 | 1935 | 436 | 41 | 50 | 91
10 | Cy Wentworth | 1928 | 1937 | 450 | 34 | 57 | 91

EDDIE GERARD 1913-23*

Rk | Player | From | To | GP | G | A | PTS
1 |Harry Cameron| 1918 |1923 | 128 |88 |51| 139
2 | Eddie Gerard | 1918 | 1923 | 128 | 50 | 48 | 98
3 |George Boucher| 1919| 1923 | 109 |50 |39| 89
4 | Sprague Cleghorn | 1919 |1923 | 100 |52| 33| 85
5 |Bert Corbeau |1918 |1923 |127 |45 |30 |75
6 |Ken Randall |1919 |1923 |106 |37 |30 |67
7 |Harry Mummery| 1918| 1923 | 106| 33 |19 |52
8 |Goldie Prodger |1922| 1923 |47 |28| 10| 38
9 |Billy Coutu |1918 |1923| 127 |24 |13 |37
10 |Leo Reise |1921 |1923 |54 |17| 20 |37

* Stats prior to 1917-18 are not available in a format that I can easily combine with these. All I know is that Gerard tied for 8th in overall goal scoring in 1916-17, suggesting that he would have been pretty high in defense scoring around that time, but definitely behind Cleghorn in 1914-15. EDIT: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Gerard switched to defense in 1917-18, making this all a moot point.


MARK HOWE 1980-95*

Rk| Player| From| To | GP| G| A| PTS
1 | Paul Coffey |1981 |1995 |1078| 358| 978 |1336
2 | Raymond Bourque | 1980| 1995| 1146| 323 |908| 1231
3 |Larry Murphy |1981 |1995 | 1152 |233| 712| 945
4 |Phil Housley |1983 |1995 | 909 |257| 625 |882
5 | Al MacInnis |1982 |1995 |835 |221 |629 |850
6 |Doug Wilson |1980| 1993 | 891| 218 |549 |767
7 | Scott Stevens |1983 |1995 | 959 |152 |542 |694
8 | Mark Howe | 1980 | 1995 | 866 | 178 | 499 | 677
9 |Dave Babych |1981| 1995 | 970 |132| 523 |655
10 | Larry Robinson |1980 |1992 |886 |128 |486 |614

ROD LANGWAY 1978-1993

Rk| Player| From| To |GP| G| A| PTS
45| Reijo Ruotsalainen| 1982 |1990| 446 |107| 237 |344
46| Mike McEwen |1979 |1988 | 579 |89 |254 |343
47| Mike Ramsey| 1980 |1993| 923 |74 |258 |332
48| Keith Brown| 1980 |1993| 812 |64 |266 |330
49 | Rod Langway | 1979 | 1993 | 994 | 51 | 278 | 329
50| Fredrik Olausson |1987| 1993| 478| 84| 244| 328
51| Willie Huber |1979 |1988| 655 |104 |217 |321
52| Brad Maxwell| 1979 |1987| 537 |80| 241 |321
53| Brad Park| 1979 |1985 | 448 |68 |251 |319
54| Stefan Persson |1979| 1986| 556| 46| 267 |313

JACQUES LAPERRIERE 1963-1974

Rk| Player| From |To |GP| G |A |PTS
1 | Bobby Orr | 1967 |1974 | 541| 213 |522| 735
2 |Pat Stapleton| 1966 |1973 | 545| 41 |286 |327
3 |J.C. Tremblay| 1964| 1972| 615| 52| 268 |320
4 | Brad Park |1969 |1974 | 387 |80 |235 |315
5 |Gary Bergman| 1965| 1974 | 687 |58| 241| 299
6 |Jim Neilson |1964 |1974| 741| 55 |227 |282
7 | Jacques Laperriere | 1964 | 1974 | 685 | 40 | 240 | 280
8 | Tim Horton |1964 |1974 | 743 |59 |200 |259
9 | Pierre Pilote | 1964| 1969 | 402 |33 |225| 258
10| Gilles Marotte| 1966 |1974 |627| 45 |212| 257

GUY LAPOINTE 1970-1984

Rk| Player| From| To| GP| G| A| PTS
1 | Denis Potvin |1974| 1984 | 779 |241| 591 |832
2 | Brad Park |1971 |1984 |932 |186| 604 |790
3 | Bobby Orr |1971 |1979 |407 |192 |467 |659
4 | Borje Salming |1974| 1984 |800| 126| 515| 641
5 | Larry Robinson |1973| 1984| 851 |141 |493| 634
6 | Guy Lapointe | 1971 | 1984 | 878 | 171 | 451 | 622
7 |Carol Vadnais |1971 |1983| 893 |129| 367 |496
8 |Ron Stackhouse| 1971| 1982| 889| 87 |372| 459
9 |Ron Greschner |1975 |1984 | 631 |134 |316 |450
10 |Jerry Korab |1971 |1984| 950| 113 |335 |448

SCOTT NIEDERMEYER 1992-2010

Rk |Player| From| To| GP| G| A| PTS
1 | Nicklas Lidstrom | 1993| 2010 |1332 |226| 760| 986
2 |Sergei Zubov| 1993 |2009 |1068 |152| 619 |771
3 | Scott Niedermayer | 1993 | 2010 | 1259 | 172 | 567 | 739
4 |Rob Blake |1993| 2010 |1134 |221 |490| 711
5 | Brian Leetch | 1993 |2006 |888| 173 |524 |697
6 |Sergei Gonchar |1995| 2010 | 991 |202 |482| 684
7 | Chris Pronger |1994 |2010 |1104 |152 |509 |661
8 |Mathieu Schneider| 1993| 2010| 1094| 198 |462| 660
9 |Roman Hamrlik| 1993 |2010| 1232 |148 |442| 590
10| Al MacInnis |1993 |2004 | 738| 166| 422 |588

MARCEL PRONOVOST 1950-1970

Rk| Player| From |To |GP |G |A| PTS
1 | Pierre Pilote | 1956 |1969 | 890 |80 |418 |498
2 | Doug Harvey |1951 |1969 | 953 |77 |415 |492
3 | Bill Gadsby |1951 |1966 |1020 |103 |383 |486
4 | Tim Horton |1952| 1970 |1199 |110 |354 |464
5 |Allan Stanley |1951| 1969 |1149| 94 |321| 415
6 | Red Kelly |1951 |1959 607| 130 |248 |378
7 |Harry Howell| 1953 |1970 | 1215| 86 |279 |365
8 | Marcel Pronovost | 1951 | 1970 | 1206 | 88 | 257 | 345
9 |Leo Boivin |1952 |1970 | 1150| 72| 250 |322
10 |Jean-Guy Talbot |1955| 1970 | 994| 43| 235| 278

BILL QUACKENBUSH 1943-1956

Rk |Player| From| To| GP| G| A| PTS
1| Red Kelly |1948| 1956 | 598| 125| 242 |367
2 | Bill Quackenbush | 1944 | 1956 | 764 | 61 | 221 | 282
3 | Doug Harvey |1948 |1956 | 567| 45| 225| 270
4 | Bill Gadsby |1947 |1956 |590 |71| 181 |252
5 |Jimmy Thomson |1946| 1956 |655| 15 |196| 211
6 |Pat Egan |1944 |1951 |457 |61 |121 |182
7 |Butch Bouchard |1944 |1956 |696 |47| 122 |169
8 |Gus Mortson |1947| 1956 | 624| 38 |123 |161
9 |Bob Goldham |1946 |1956 | 631 |24 |136 |160
10 |Glen Harmon |1944 |1951| 425 |45 |87 |132

SERGE SAVARD 1967-1981

1| Bobby Orr | 1968 |1979 | 596 |257 |617 |874
2| Brad Park | 1969 |1981 |815 |171| 532 |703
3 | Denis Potvin | 1974| 1981 | 572 |183 |437| 620
4 |Carol Vadnais |1968| 1981 | 975 |162 |402| 564
5 |Guy Lapointe| 1969 |1981| 730 |165| 387 |552
6 | Borje Salming | 1974 |1981 | 594 |102 |395 |497
7 | Larry Robinson | 1973| 1981| 635| 106 |363 |469
8 |Ron Stackhouse| 1971| 1981| 813| 85 |353 |438
9 | Serge Savard | 1968 | 1981 | 915 | 100 | 312 | 412
10| Ian Turnbull |1974 |1981| 568 |112 |300 |412

JACK STEWART 1938-1952

Rk |Player| From |To| GP| G| A |PTS
1| Red Kelly | 1948 |1952|326 |59|118| 177
2|Flash Hollett|1938|1946| 265|71|98|169
3|Pat Egan|1939 |1951 |458|55|110|165
4| Bill Quackenbush | |1942|1952 |429 |44 |119 |163
5|Babe Pratt |1938|1947 |306|34 |124 |158
6|Jimmy Thomson|1946|1952|393|9|131|140
7| Dit Clapper |1938 |1947 |240|41|82|123
8|Ken Reardon|1940 | 1950|341|26| 96|122
9 | Jack Stewart |1938 |1952 ||565 |31|84 |115
10| Bill Gadsby |1947 |1952|312|37|77|114

J.C. TREMBLAY 1960-1972

Rk |Player| From| To| GP| G| A| PTS
1 | Bobby Orr | 1967 |1972| 404 |152| 360 |512
2 | J.C. Tremblay | 1961 | 1972 | 783 | 57 | 305 | 362
3 | Pierre Pilote |1961| 1969 | 590| 54| 307| 361
4 | Tim Horton |1961 |1972 | 816 |80 |240 |320
5 |Pat Stapleton| 1962| 1972 | 560| 33| 273| 306
6 |Harry Howell |1961 |1972 |792 |58 |234 |292
7 |Doug Mohns |1961 |1972 | 533| 87 |193 |280
8 |Jim Neilson |1963 |1972 |686 |52 |215 |267
9 |Ted Green |1961 |1972 | 620 |48 |206| 254
10| Jacques Laperriere| 1963| 1972| 592| 31| 216| 247

 

[Dreakmur]

Seems like the consensus of those who saw them play is that Gerard did. Notice Gerard's placement on all those all-time teams at the defense position. It's not like Boucher did anything worth talking about in the last several seasons of his career.

That's not quite true.

Those who saw them play thought Gerard was better, but that doesn't mean he accomplished more, or is better in an all-time context.

Let's say Crosby is done, and Malkin goes on to play another 10 years of great hockey. We will all talk about how Crosby was better, but Malkin will have a much better career.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That's not quite true.

Those who saw them play thought Gerard was better, but that doesn't mean he accomplished more, or is better in an all-time context.

Those who saw Bobby Orr play thought he was better than Bourque, but that doesn't mean he accomplished more than Bourque, or is better than Bourque in an All-Time context. Bourque has a massive advantages in post-season All-Stars (19-9) afterall. Sorry, I've been waiting to post this goofy example and this seemed like a place to do it

I think it's similar to Hod Stuart vs. Harvey Pulford. If one player is simply better, who cares if the other player played longer?

As for Boucher, his 1923-24 season was absolutely elite, but I think there's a good case that was the only elite season of his career, though he had other very good ones. Gerard pretty clearly was elite for at least 4 straight seasons, probably more.

Let's say Crosby is done, and Malkin goes on to play another 10 years of great hockey. We will all talk about how Crosby was better, but Malkin will have a much better career.

It's off-topic, but other than a half season pace that he may or may not have kept up, I don't see Crosby as peaking higher than Malkin. His advantage (so far) is consistency.

 

[canucks4ever]

That's not quite true.

Those who saw them play thought Gerard was better, but that doesn't mean he accomplished more, or is better in an all-time context.

Let's say Crosby is done, and Malkin goes on to play another 10 years of great hockey. We will all talk about how Crosby was better, but Malkin will have a much better career.

Well malkin was arguably better in 08 and 09. If Malkin goes on to have a great career, he deserves to be considered better.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Those who saw Bobby Orr play thought he was better than Bourque, but that doesn't mean he accomplished more than Bourque, or is better than Bourque in an All-Time context. Bourque has a massive advantages in post-season All-Stars (19-9) afterall. Sorry, I've been waiting to post this goofy example and this seemed like a place to do it

I think it's similar to Hod Stuart vs. Harvey Pulford. If one player is simply better, who cares if the other player played longer?

I think of it in terms of the beer leaguers at my local rink. When I think of the best players I've played against, I'm listing off the awesome ones who flew past everyone and scored at will... even if they were only around for a couple seasons. The guys who have played well for the past 10 years are great and all, but they aren't the best players I've seen.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I have a feeling that hockey players are going to be a bit more biased toward peak for that reason, whereas writers and historians are going to be a bit more biased toward longetivity.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think of it in terms of the beer leaguers at my local rink. When I think of the best players I've played against, I'm listing off the awesome ones who flew past everyone and scored at will... even if they were only around for a couple seasons. The guys who have played well for the past 10 years are great and all, but they aren't the best players I've seen.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I have a feeling that hockey players are going to be a bit more biased toward peak for that reason, whereas writers and historians are going to be a bit more biased toward longetivity.

Good point. But either way, the hockey historian Charles Coleman preferred Gerard (and Harry Cameron) to Boucher. Though he did prefer Moose Johnson to Gerard.

Foster Hewitt was a broadcaster, not a hockey player, and he picked Eddie Gerard along with Eddie Shore over anyone else.

 

[overpass]

Don't think it's been mentioned yet, but Mark Howe was on the WHA's 2nd all-star team in 1977 as a defenseman. It's typically said that he was a forward in the WHA, but he was a defenseman for at least that season. I checked the 1978 scouting report and it corroborates this.

I had read that Howe played some defence during that season, but hadn't realized he had done it enough to place on the all-star team at the position.

Going to the archives...

Tim Burke, Montreal Gazette, Feb 11, 1977

The Aeros are on a torrid streak at the moment, having lost only one game in their last 12. And Dineen has a ready explanation for that one: 14 games ago, he put Mark Howe back on defence.

"Mark's been amazing back there. He's already at a level with Serge Savard, Larry Robinson, Guy Lapointe, Jimmy Watson, Borje Salming, Denis Potvin, and Brad Park," Dineen tells you without a moment's hesitation. "He's got tremendous mobility with the puck, so that teams are shy about forechecking us. Hell, he can beat anybody one-on-one, he passes with the best, and he's got an overpowering shot which is almost as accurate as Bobby Orr's."

In 33 games this season - he was injured for a long spell - Mark has 17 goals and 24 assists and since he's gone back on defence he has 19 points in those 14 games. "The advantage is that we can use him on every second shift and at right wing on the power play," Dineen says. "Yeah, and like Orr, he's a lefthanded shot playing the right side."

Based on the numbers in the above quote, Howe had played 33 games and had 41 points. He had 19 points in 14 games at defence, so he must have had 22 points in 19 games at forward. Surprisingly, he was actually scoring more from the blueline. Maybe there wasn't a big difference between the offensive contribution he could make as a defensively-minded LW and an offensively-minded D.

During the remaining part of the regular season, Howe played another 24 games and scored 34 more points. I don't know if those all came at defence, but he was playing defence in the playoffs...up until his team's final game.

Harlan Daily Enterprise, May 4, 1977:

Coach Bill Dineen will move defenseman Mark Howe head up with Anders Hedberg in an effort to keep alive his Houston Aeros' slim playoff hopes against the Winnipeg Jets.

Kromm then had the advantage of the last line change and he sent his top line in against a slowed-down Gordie Howe, Ted Taylor, and Larry Lund.

"We're going to make some adjustments," Dineen said, "to slow down Hedberg especially. I think we'll throw Mark on the front line."

Despite Mark Howe's success on the blueline, he was back on the forward line his following two seasons in the WHA. I haven't read any reasons why - presumably the team needed him more at forward. I did notice the following article indicating that he still played a bit of defence.

The Leader-Post, Mar 21, 1979:

Mark Howe, shifted to defence from his regular left-wing spot four games ago by Whalers' coach Bill Dineen, contributed a goal and three assists.

That may add some additional longevity credit for those who prefer to focus on Howe's time on defence.

Edit: More on Mark Howe and forward vs defence. Specifically the 1979-80 season.

The Montreal Gazette, Sep 20, 1979:

As the Hartford team heads into its first season in the National Hockey League, Mark is being moved back to defence. He spent most of his six years in the World Hockey Association at left wing, where he averaged nearly 35 goals a season.

Coach Don Blackburn said the move will allow the Whalers to use Howe's talents to the fullest.

"If we put Mark Howe on a wing, they'll have a man on him in every building we go into. On defence, there is no real way they can do that."

Playing defence will also see Howe on the ice from eight to 10 more minutes each game, which Blackburn feels the Whalers will need.

"We have been planning on this move," said Blackburn. "All of the big clubs have guys like him on defence.

"I would compare Mark to Bobby Orr. I'm not saying he is as good as Orr or not as good. He has the same style of play. And I think he can generate the same type of thing for us as Orr did for the (Boston) Bruins."

Mark, who scored 42 goals with the Whalers last season, has played defence in at least three other times in his career and has been considered one of the finest defensive forwards in the game.

"I liked it before," he said at the Whalers training camp in the Hartford suburb of Bolton. "I get more ice time. There's not really that much difference than playing wing."

In the first four games of the NHL season, the Whalers were 0-2-2. Howe scored no points as a defenceman.

The Windsor Star, Oct 20, 1979

"The Mark Howe experiment is over," said Hartford coach Don Blackburn, who shifted Mark Howe back from defence to left wing.

"We can always use him on defence when we have to. He gave us the scoring left we needed. You saw the real Mark Howe tonight - jumping, controlling, dominating the game."

Howe maintained a point per game for about 25 games at forward, but then slumped. Through 35 games at LW, he had 12 goals, 17 assists, and 29 points. Overall, his production was inconsistent, seemingly coming in multi-point games or not at all.

The Morning Record and Journal, Jan 16, 1980:

Coach Don Blackburn shifted Alan Hangsleben from defense to wing and Mark Howe from left wing to defense for Saturday night's game against the Detroit Red Wings, which the Whalers won 6-4 to snap a winless drought of nine games.

James Christie, the Globe and Mail, Feb 16, 1980:

The incoming Whalers have had much more success recently than have the Leafs. With Mark Howe as a driving force on defence the past 15 games, the Whalers have built a recent record of 9-4-2. Howe has picked up 26 points over that span and has gone up in the plus-minus statistics from plus 3 to plus 18.

The Albany Herald, Feb 20, 1980

Mark Howe, who looks like a new man since being switched to defense 18 games ago, scored two goals and assisted on two others to lead Hartford.

Howe played defence for the remaining 41 games. He scored 12 goals and assisted on 39, for a total of 51 points.

Totals for the 1979-80 season. Important - Howe missed 6 games that season and I don't know which games they were. If we assume they all came during the games I identified him as a wing, he had 29 points in 29 games at wing. If anyone knows which games he missed, let me know and I can update this.

LW - 35 GP, 12 G, 17 A, 29 P
D - 45 GP, 12 G, 39 A, 51 P

Hartford's record with Howe at LW: 9-18-8, 3.3 GF/G, 3.9 GA/G
Hartford's record with Howe at D: 18-16-11, 4.2 GF/G, 3.9 GA/G

Interesting stat: From the time Howe was put back on defence on January 12, 1980 up to the game before he was injured by sliding into the net on Dec 27, 1980, his team played 77 regular season games. He had 25 goals, 72 assists, and 97 points from the defence position during that time. Up until the final few days, 1980 was a very good year for Mark Howe.

 

[vecens24]

That's not quite true.

Those who saw them play thought Gerard was better, but that doesn't mean he accomplished more, or is better in an all-time context.

Let's say Crosby is done, and Malkin goes on to play another 10 years of great hockey. We will all talk about how Crosby was better, but Malkin will have a much better career.

As a Pens fan I'm going to tell you this isn't exactly the best example because Malkin in that '08 Cup run through to the next season had a season and a half is as good as anything Crosby has accomplished to this point if not better (if Crosby played a full year he exceeds Malkin that season in all likelihood, but he didn't so we really can't say that). The 08 season where he finished runner up to Ovechkin was Ovechkin's peak season where he scored 65 goals and was an absolutely unstoppable force, the 09 season though I think he deserved to win it. Crosby's Hart was more than deserved, but it wasn't exactly super competiton that year either, which doesn't mean to take away from what he did I'm just saying that I think it is very possible we could be looking at Malkin having two Hart trophies had his season and a half of dominance occurred one year later as opposed to when it did.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I wouldn't use that to make that conclusion. It can mean a lot of things.



Not in longevity as an elite player.

Also, relative to era, you could say Langway had the better longevity when using the term in the "classic" sense. His last full time season, he was 34. 18 skaters were 34 or older. When Niedermayer played his last season at 36, 43 players were 36 or older.

True but for a defensive player like Langway is hard to describe when his peak ends and Nieds also left for family reasons, not that he couldn't play in the league anymore like Langway.

Also while Nieds "peak" came later in his career he was hardly just an average player before that. In a sense his early part of his career might be undervalued like Lidstrom's is to some. (I'm not comparing their early careers just that their team value may be underrepresented by some viewers). At age 25 (first year I could find Nieds played more minutes than any NJ Dman beating Stevens by a slight amount). Looking from his stats it's pretty likely that Nieds was playing top minutes from his age 19 season on, maybe someone has more info on this.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Also while Nieds "peak" came later in his career he was hardly just an average player before that. In a sense his early part of his career might be undervalued like Lidstrom's is to some. (I'm not comparing their early careers just that their team value may be underrepresented by some viewers). At age 25 (first year I could find Nieds played more minutes than any NJ Dman beating Stevens by a slight amount). Looking from his stats it's pretty likely that Nieds was playing top minutes from his age 19 season on, maybe someone has more info on this.

Niedermayer was playing second pairing minutes at even strength and on the PK whenever Scott Stevens was in the lineup. He sometimes played on the first PP unit but wasn't very good at it, and was finally moved to the second unit when Rafalski came. Scott Stevens rarely if ever played on the PP during this time.

Sure he was an above average defenseman during that time, but let's not pretend he was playing "top minutes" please.

I don't even think Niedermayer is the worst defenseman this round, but this revisionist history has got to stop.

Edit: and before you bring up TOI, I'm well aware that Niedermayer sometimes had more than Stevens. Playing on the PP and playing easy minutes at even strength let him do so.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Gerard's case vs. two other short-prime defensemen.

The case for Gerard over Niedermayer

1) Longer prime - Gerard was an elite player for 4-6 seasons, Niedermayer for 3-4.

2) Similar length career adjusted by era. Gerard didn't turn pro until he was 23 years old, but this was very common back then. He played professional hockey until he was 33 years old. Niedermayer retired for the first time at 33 years old because he had lost his passion for the game, he returned and played until he was 36, but wasn't quite the same. Gerard was elite until a medical condition that would be easily treatable with today's medicine forced him to retire.

Counterargument: Niedermayer spent his entire career as a defenseman. Gerard spent the less productive half of his career as a forward

3) At least as much contribution to team success. Both men won 4 Stanley Cups. Niedermayer was a star for 2 and an important contributing secondary player for 2. Gerard was a star through all 4 Cups and captained his team for 3 of them.

Gerard did only play the one game for Toronto for 1 of the 4 Cups, but was quite important - "Gerard was quickly summoned and played a crucial part in the St. Pats' victory in the fourth game of the match-up. In fact, he was so impressive that Patrick balked at allowing Gerard to participate in the fifth and deciding contest. It mattered little, as Toronto won the final match 5-1, with much of the credit for the shift in momentum resting with Gerard's involvement in the previous game. "

4) The 2nd or 3rd best defenseman of his generation after Cleghorn. In terms of peak, Gerard was as good as anyone, including Cleghorn. One might prefer Moose Johnson to Gerard, if you are big into longevity. Niedermayer on the other hand, was the 3rd-5th best defenseman of his generation, after Lidstrom and Pronger, depending on what you think of Blake and Chara (Yes, I went there, what makes Nieds a step above those two?).

The counterargument is obvious - Niedermayer was a part of a stronger generation, starting with Lidstrom vs. Cleghorn at the top.

The case for Gerard Over Langway

1) Similar lengthed prime - Langway accomplished pretty much everything that we are considering him for during a 6 year period between 1981 and 1986.

2) Similar lengthed career even before looking at era. Gerard didn't turn pro until he was 23 years old, but this was very common back then. He played professional hockey until he was 33 years old. Langway's last full season was at 31 years old before injuries started to mount. He was 34 years old the last time he played more than half the games and played 21 more games at the age of 35 before retiring.

Counter-argument: Same as above. Langway was always a defenseman. Gerard spent the less productive half of his career as a forward.

3) MUCH more prolific in the playoffs. 3 Cups as the captain of the NHL's first dynasty, and a 4th Cup with the game as a ringer for Toronto.

4) Good at both ends of the ice. I'm not sure this matters to me, but it might to some. Gerard was among the best defensive defensemen of his era (only Moose Johnson really has a case to be better IMO), but he was also quite productive offensively.
______________________________________________________

The main issue with Gerard is that his non-prime years were spent as a forward. But we shouldn't judge him by modern standards when it comes to that - every star defenseman of his era (Cleghorn, Boucher, Johnson, Cameron) spent some time at forward, and some of them (like Boucher) spent signficant time there, as did Gerard.

I view Gerard as a hockey player who was productive until the age of 33 with a 5-6 year peak as an elite defenseman. If he played in an era with better medicine, he'd undoubtedly have at least a few more years as a productive player, too.

Nieds "peak or prime" is kinda fuzzy but he was still an excellent Dman outside of whatever prime or peak we establish for him here.

Also when comparing the 2 eras Nieds 68 available post season all star selections were taken by 30 players from the states and Europe while most of the other guys in this round were competing against Canadian only competition, something to consider.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Niedermayer was playing second pairing minutes at even strength and on the PK whenever Scott Stevens was in the lineup. He sometimes played on the first PP unit but wasn't very good at it, and was finally moved to the second unit when Rafalski came. Scott Stevens rarely if ever played on the PP during this time.

Sure he was an above average defenseman during that time, but let's not pretend he was playing "top minutes" please.

I don't even think Niedermayer is the worst defenseman this round, but this revisionist history has got to stop.

Edit: and before you bring up TOI, I'm well aware that Niedermayer sometimes had more than Stevens. Playing on the PP and playing easy minutes at even strength let him do so.

I guess we might agree to disagree on this, I just don't see a coach playing Nieds "top minutes" ie as much as or close to Stevens if he wasn't a valuable player on that team. I'm not sure how many easy minutes there were in the NHL post 1990 sure some minutes were harder than others but it's not like the disparity that Savard played under with the Habs versus the worst teams in the league gap in the mid 70's for instance.

Sure Stevens skillset and role was better suited to the team and times in NJ but there is nothing revisionist in saying that he (Nieds) was a top 20, 10, 5 or 3 Dman in a fully integrated league for quite large periods of time relatively on the "historical scale" which should also work on the longevity factor backwards and the integrated factor forwards to some degree.

In reality it's very difficult to compare Nieds to Gerard with all the different variables involved.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You're still pretending that Niedermayer was a top 5 defenseman for more than 3-4 seasons? Hey, Jay Bouwmeister is always near the top of the league in TOI; let's add him to our list, too!

 

[Hardyvan123]

You're still pretending that Niedermayer was a top 5 defenseman for more than 3-4 seasons? Hey, Jay Bouwmeister is always near the top of the league in TOI; let's add him to our list, too!

First off Jay is playing top minutes for a bad team, Nieds was playing top minutes for teams that were quite a bit better.

TOI isn't the be all or end all (I'm tired, pretty sure I screwed up that quote...lol)but it does tell us part of the story IMO.

Perhaps Nieds wasn't a top 5 Dman for more than 3-4 seasons but in a fully integrated league his top 10 and top 20 seasons have meaning as well when comparing to a 6 team Canadian league for instance.

Our starting point is looking at all star team selections, Norris voting but we have to take a bigger look to fairly compare players from different eras.

And when we are comparing him to Gerard with the different leagues and distribution of talent and quite a different type of game and rules it gets pretty difficult.

I have no problem ranking guys like Clancy and Shore ahead of Nieds but I'm not sure that Gerard playing earlier has enough of a case to be ranked over Nieds.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I don't even think Niedermayer is the worst defenseman this round, but this revisionist history has got to stop.

It's not revisionism, you're just biased.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Thoughts on the scoring numbers I posted above:

- Conacher surprises me. I wasn't even considering him, but now I'm not so sure. Being the runaway third leading scorer of his time, behind Shore and Clancy in particular, seems significant. There's a wide gap from Conacher to Shore/Clancy, but the gap is just as big from Conacher to Mantha. I haven't seen anything to indicate he was a defensive liability so the scoring numbers are impressive. Also, two second-place Hart finishes isn't half bad either. Now I'm chewing on whether he's the #3 defenseman of his time frame and whether that's better than being the #5 guy of the 1950s or the #8 guy of the 1980s.

- Trembley's scoring numbers look much, much more impressive than Laperriere's. I'd have a hard time putting Laperriere over him unless there was a really sound argument to be made about his defensive prowess. Laperriere is generally sinking on my ranking.

- Niedermayer's numbers look impressive until I look at his competition. Then I'm not so sure. Blake has him beat solidly in PPG, while playing on worse teams, and I considered Blake the better defensive player for all but a couple of seasons. Niedermayer's only defense is that he played on the Lemaire Devils, but I'm not sure that excuse closes the gap completely.

- If Langway, Howe and Lapointe were to make the list this round, we would have a situation where 14 of our top 30 were active in 1984 -- Bourque, Chelios, Coffey, Fetisov, Howe, Langway, Lapointe, MacInnis, Park, Potvin, Robinson, Salming, Stevens, Vasiliev. They were all great defensemen, but when the numbers skew THAT hard it's hard not to see evidence of era bias.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Thoughts on the scoring numbers I posted above:

- Conacher surprises me. I wasn't even considering him, but now I'm not so sure. Being the runaway third leading scorer of his time, behind Shore and Clancy in particular, seems significant. There's a wide gap from Conacher to Shore/Clancy, but the gap is just as big from Conacher to Mantha. I haven't seen anything to indicate he was a defensive liability so the scoring numbers are impressive. Also, two second-place Hart finishes isn't half bad either. Now I'm chewing on whether he's the #3 defenseman of his time frame and whether that's better than being the #5 guy of the 1950s or the #8 guy of the 1980s.

It's hard to know what to make of Conacher's numbers. But consider the following:

1) Dreakmur wrote this earlier in the thread: "Lionel Conacher - His offensive totals might be off, since I did read that he spent significant time on forward during parts of his career - mostly in NY." Worth looking into I think. I never take "scoring among defensemen" at face value before World War 2.

2) The "best" offensive defenseman after Conacher (Sylvio Mantha) has a reputation as defensive defenseman who could chip in points here and there. Finishing ahead of him isn't necessarily the biggest accomplishment.

3) If we're judging Conacher based on offense, the fact that he only has 4 career points in the playoffs might be a concern. (Though he is well known as one of the key players of the 1934 Cup winning team - The HHOF awarded him a Retro Smythe, so it's not like his playoffs are necessarily bad).

Personally, I think Ching Johnson was a better defenseman than Conacher. They played at the exact same time. Including the reconstructed all-star teams:

Ching Johnson = 3 1st Team All Stars, 2 2nd Team All-Stars, inducted into the HHOF in 1958
Lionel Conacher = 1 1st Team All Star, 4 2nd Team All-Stars, inducted into the HHOF in 1994

But Ching's not available now, so if you think Conacher is better than guys available now, you should vote for him.

- Trembley's scoring numbers look much, much more impressive than Laperriere's. I'd have a hard time putting Laperriere over him unless there was a really sound argument to be made about his defensive prowess. Laperriere is generally sinking on my ranking.

I like Tremblay more too, but because of playoffs. Laperriere was a defensive defenseman and Tremblay was inconsistant in his own zone (C1958 likes to criticize his attempts at defending Bobby Hull) so I really don't care about their regular season offensive numbers. But Tremblay just seems so much more important to the 60s dynasty in the playoffs that I have to rank him ahead.

- Niedermayer's numbers look impressive until I look at his competition. Then I'm not so sure. Blake has him beat solidly in PPG, while playing on worse teams, and I considered Blake the better defensive player for all but a couple of seasons. Niedermayer's only defense is that he played on the Lemaire Devils, but I'm not sure that excuse closes the gap completely.

If Niedermayer's competition is bad, what is Conacher's? Well, 2 great names above him, and a lot of guys not known for their offense below him. Tough to figure out (especially considering we don't know whether and how much he played forward).

The Niedermayer vs. Blake comparison is an interesting one - it's been made on the HHOF board before. My opinion is that their regular season resumes are basically the same, but Niedermayer has a slight playoff advantage and should be ranked slightly higher than Blake.

- If Langway, Howe and Lapointe were to make the list this round, we would have a situation where 14 of our top 30 were active in 1984 -- Bourque, Chelios, Coffey, Fetisov, Howe, Langway, Lapointe, MacInnis, Park, Potvin, Robinson, Salming, Stevens, Vasiliev. They were all great defensemen, but when the numbers skew THAT hard it's hard not to see evidence of era bias.

On the one hand, 1984 represents when the two great post Orr generations of defensemen (the guys who peaked in the late 70s and the guys who peaked in the late 80s/early 90s) were all in the league at the same time.

On the other hand, I do think we need to make sure we aren't too being too biased towards post-expansion times.

 

[tarheelhockey]

1) Dreakmur wrote this earlier in the thread: "Lionel Conacher - His offensive totals might be off, since I did read that he spent significant time on forward during parts of his career - mostly in NY." Worth looking into I think. I never take "scoring among defensemen" at face value before World War 2.

I read through every NYT article (and a couple of other papers) from his time in New York and found exactly 1 game where he played forward. Moreover, I am finding that the more I read about Conacher, the more overlooked he seems to me. Here's a survey of his career with the Americans:

Lionel Conacher, the big Pittsburgh leader, was in the game at defense, and he tore through, but Forbes was alert at the net.
...
A couple of minutes later, Conacher went tearing down the ice at top speed, and his vicious drive hopped off Forbes's shin pads. Conacher caught the rebound and pounded it into the cage. The Pirates were going great guns.

Lionel Conacher, the giant defense man recently acquired by the Americans from Pittsburgh, was a tower of strength, not only on the back line, but in some thrilling attacks.

Time and again he thrilled the crowd with superb stick handling and in the third period scored the second goal of the game on a sparkling individual play.

While the Rangers have been weakened on the defense by the loss of [Ching] Johnson, it is a coincidence that the Americans have been greatly strengthened in this department of the game by the addition of Lionel Conacher, who came here from Pittsburgh in a trade for Langlois. Conacher is a tower of strength on the back line and is also one of the best men on the attack in the pro ranks. His stick handling in the last Pittsburgh game was brilliant.

Lionel Conacher, who plays defense for Newsy Lalonde's Americans team and tosses opposing skaters on the ice to see how high they will bounce, is a remarkable athlete in more ways than one.
Conacher, first and foremost, is one of the leading hockey players in the professional league. [goes on to summarize his other achievements]
Opposing hockey players who are bumped to the ice by Conacher seem to be well aware of this imposing record. They work off their vengeance on someone else.

Men who didn't know a poke check from a goal-tender a year ago will now corner a hapless citizen and discourse at length on the relative abilities of Lionel Conacher and Ching Johnson.
...
The defense men in hockey are known as "hoisters". It is their duty to receive visiting delegates from the opposing team, to hoist them in the air and let them fall where they may ... Lionel Conacher of the Americans, Ching Johnson of the Rangers, King Clancy of the Senators and Sprague Cleghorn of the Bruins are the premier hoisters of the league.

These accounts from his first season in New York portray him as very much on the level of Johnson, Clancy and Cleghorn. He's consistently noted in game summaries for his dazzling offensive abilities and the tone of the last two articles quoted indicate he was a very stout defensive presence as well. There is no indication that he played forward or that his numbers (4th in d-scoring behind Clancy, Shore and Gord Fraser) were inflated.

Rk | Player | Age | Team | GP | G | A | P | PIM
1| King Clancy| 23 |OTS | 43| 9| 10| 19| 78
2| Eddie Shore |24 |BOS |40 |12 |6 |18 |130
3| Lionel Conacher| 25| PTP/NYA | 39| 8| 9| 17| 93
4|Sylvio Mantha| 24| MTL|43| 10| 5| 15| 11| 77
5|John McKinnon|24|PTP|44|13|0|13|21

Lionel played a rather bang-up game, all things considered, on both defense and attack. In the second period he got tired waiting for his team-mates to help him out with a little team work and scored the lonely counter on a glittering one-man rush.

Lionel Conacher, defense player, is the main star of the Americans. Conacher is one of those big, rough, tough fellows who checks hard and is feared by the best forwards in the sport.

At this point it sounds like Conacher was more or less a one-man team, carrying the Americans when he was on the ice. On occasions where he was out of the lineup or in the box, reporters unfailingly mention that the Americans wilted and waited for him to return. In a few games, it's noted that the outcome basically hinged on his individual ability to break through the opposing defense. On occasions where he failed or was snakebitten, the Americans struggled badly to produce offense. It's worth noting that Conacher was one of the league PIM leaders, along with Shore.

Rk | Player | Age | Team | GP | G | A | P | PIM
1| Lionel Conacher|26| NYA | 35| 11| 6| 17| 82
2| Eddie Shore |25| BOS | 43| 11| 6 |17| 165
3| Ching Johnson| 29| NYR | 42| 10| 6| 16| 146
4| King Clancy |24| OTS | 39| 8| 7| 15| 73
5| Sylvio Mantha |25 |MTL | 43 |4 |11| 15| 61

Conacher definitely played (and scored a goal) at center on 12/21/1927. He was back at defense the next day (and scored again). Apparently he thrived on rink-long rushes, so perhaps playing defense made more sense:

Lionel Conacher was the outstanding player for the Americans, being implicated in all three of their goals. Boucher scored on Lionel's pass in the first period, Conacher counted himself on an individual play and Burch scored on his pass in the closing canto.
...
The Americans finally got moving and broke the ice at 8:41 when Billy Boucher, substitute forward, scored after a spectacular dash by Conacher, defense man. Following a Montreal attack, Lionel charged down the centre (sic... interesting) of the ice with the disk and was tripped thirty feet from the net by Siebert.

As he lay sliding, with stick outstretched, Conacher managed to swish the rubber to Boucher who drove it past Benedict in the Maroon net. It was a spectacular play and the crowd roared approval...
...
Play opened at high pressure in the second period and it was not long before the Americans had forged to the front again on another fine play by Conacher. Lionel charged down the centre again, slammed one shot home which was wide and then batted in his own rebound.

Having read a whole lot of game summaries from this period for the top-60 project, I can't honestly say I've seen anyone described as such a one-man offensive force. It sounds like Conacher may have been a legitimate superstar who was simply stuck on a bad team while Shore and Clancy were also reaching that level.

Summaries over the next couple of seasons are pretty much more of the same. Conacher was put in the slightly ridiculous position of being the manager, coach, captain, top offenseive and defensive player, and main pugilist for the Americans. When he was sold to Montreal the following season and replaced with Eddie Gerard as manager, a Times editorial remarked that it was easier for ownership to find a new manager than to find a good forward.

It's pretty clear from summaries and editorials that his play suffered as he took on management responsibility. One writer compared it to making Babe Ruth the manager of the Yankees.

Here are his final two seasons with the Americans:

Rk | Player | Age | Team | GP | G | A | P | PIM
1| Eddie Shore| 26 |BOS |39 |12 |7 |19 | 96
2 |King Clancy |25 |OTS |44 |13| 2| 15| 89
3 |Sylvio Mantha|26 |MTL |44 |9 |4 |13 |56
4 |Albert Leduc |26 |MTL |43 |9| 2| 11| 79
5 |George Owen | 27| BOS | 27 |5 |4 |9 |48
6 |Art Duncan |37| TOR | 39| 4| 4| 8| 53
7 |Alex Smith |26| OTS | 44 |1 |7 |8 | 96
8 |Lionel Conacher| 27 |NYA | 44 |5| 2 |7 | 132
9 |George Boucher| 32| OTS/MTM|41 |4 |2 |6 | 70
10 |Marty Burke |24 |MTL |44 |4 |2| 6| 4| 68

Rk | Name | Age | Team | GP | G | A | P | PIM
1 |King Clancy |26| OTS |44| 17 |23 |40 | 83
2 |Eddie Shore| 27 |BOS |42 |12| 19 |31 |105
3 |Sylvio Mantha |27 |MTL | 44 |13| 11| 24 |108
4 |Joe Simpson |36 |NYA | 44 |8 |13 |21 | 41
5 |John McKinnon| 27| PTP| 41 |10| 7 |17 |42
6 |Red Dutton |31 |MTM |43 |3 |13 |16 | 98
7 |Albert Leduc |27| MTL |44 |6| 8| 14 |90
8 |Leo Bourgeault| 27 |NYR| 44| 7| 6| 13 | 54
9 |Marty Burke |25 |MTL |44 |2| 11| 13| 71
10 |George Owen |28| BOS | 42 |9 |4 |13 | 31
11 |Bert McCaffrey |36 |PTP/MTL| 43 |4 |7 |11| 38
12 |Lionel Conacher| 28| NYA | 40 |4 |6| 10| 73
13 |Gord Fraser | 28 |PTP/MTL| 40 |6 |4 |10 |41
14 |Art Duncan| 38 |TOR| 38 |4 |5| 9| 49
15| Lionel Hitchman |28| BOS| 39| 2| 7 |9 | 58

Anyway, having looked at all the available Times summaries I can only find 1 instance of Conacher playing at a forward position. His stats, minus that one goal, appear to be legitimate.

I don't have access to good Montreal papers to provide a narrative of his later career. However, I'm actually starting to do a bit of a 180 on Conacher. I'll go out on a limb and say that for peak, he is the best player left on the list. He was truly dominant at both ends of the ice, an elite scorer as well as providing "airtight" and hard-hitting defense along the lines of a peak Robinson or Pronger. The only defensemen at that time who were clear-cut ahead of him were Shore (our #4) and Clancy (our #12), and the only one before him who seems to have peaked as high was Cleghorn (our #15).

Conacher's biggest flaws are that he played for 3 ill-fated franchises, and that he was better known in other sports. Put this guy on the Leafs and I honestly believe he becomes a Shore-level superstar in short order.